Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Apple

Apple Geofences Third-Party Browser Engine Work for EU Devices (theregister.com) 81

Posted by msmash from the sad-state-of-affairs dept.
Apple's grudging accommodation of European law -- allowing third-party browser engines on its mobile devices -- apparently comes with a restriction that makes it difficult to develop and support third-party browser engines for the region. From a report: The Register has learned from those involved in the browser trade that Apple has limited the development and testing of third-party browser engines to devices physically located in the EU. That requirement adds an additional barrier to anyone planning to develop and support a browser with an alternative engine in the EU.

It effectively geofences the development team. Browser-makers whose dev teams are located in the US will only be able to work on simulators. While some testing can be done in a simulator, there's no substitute for testing on device -- which means developers will have to work within Apple's prescribed geographical boundary. Prior to iOS 17.4, Apple required all web browsers on iOS or iPadOS to use Apple's WebKit rendering engine. Alternatives like Gecko (used by Mozilla Firefox) or Blink (used by Google and other Chromium-based browsers) were not permitted. Whatever brand of browser you thought you were using on your iPhone, under the hood it was basically Safari. Browser makers have objected to this for years, because it limits competitive differentiation and reduces the incentive for Apple owners to use non-Safari browsers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Geofences Third-Party Browser Engine Work for EU Devices More

Apple Geofences Third-Party Browser Engine Work for EU Devices

Comments Filter:

  • A site VPN terminated in the EU should circumvent this, at least for WiFi testing. Throw in a GPS spoofing device for the office if they're using location services.

    • Re:Seems minor (Score:5, Insightful)

      by leptons ( 891340 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @12:00PM (#64479399)
      None of this should be necessary, but Apple are just assholes. Kicking and screaming the whole way, like the spoiled children they apparently are.

      • If there are geographic restrictions on the services they are supplying, I can't really call this 'malicious compliance'. It's more like 'minimum effort'.

        Please do not take the previous statement as an endorsement of Apple business practices in general.

        • Re:Seems minor (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @01:34PM (#64479705)

          If there are geographic restrictions on the services they are supplying, I can't really call this 'malicious compliance'. It's more like 'minimum effort'.

          Although, doing nothing to restrict developers would probably require even less effort.

    • You also need to go in the woods or build a Faraday cage or something to avoid seeing any WiFi that's already in their DB (which contains really everything by now, unless you have an access point in some deep basement or something, and nobody took an iDevice there ever). The VPN trick works exclusively if you can fully trust your machine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        You also need to go in the woods or build a Faraday cage or something to avoid seeing any WiFi that's already in their DB (which contains really everything by now, unless you have an access point in some deep basement or something, and nobody took an iDevice there ever). The VPN trick works exclusively if you can fully trust your machine.

        No need to go to that much trouble. Just turn on Airplane mode, use wired networking (a USB-C Ethernet adapter or Lightning Ethernet adapter), and be in a basement where GPS signals don't reach.

        • "WiFi testing" needs WiFi on, or?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            "WiFi testing" needs WiFi on, or?

            I assumed the point of that bit was "with cellular turned off to prevent cell tower triangulation or cellular carrier detection," in which case the fix for the additional "Wi-Fi triangulation is still a problem" limitation is to not use that, either.

        • You also need to go in the woods or build a Faraday cage or something to avoid seeing any WiFi that's already in their DB (which contains really everything by now, unless you have an access point in some deep basement or something, and nobody took an iDevice there ever). The VPN trick works exclusively if you can fully trust your machine.

          No need to go to that much trouble. Just turn on Airplane mode, use wired networking (a USB-C Ethernet adapter or Lightning Ethernet adapter), and be in a basement where GPS signals don't reach.

          Can you actually use Terrestrial Ethernet on iOS/iPadOS?

          Cool!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by higuita ( 129722 )

      or even simpler, device racks in EU, with remote access from any place in the world

  • This limits choice for EU citizens in the EU. Unfortunately the handling of Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviors is precedent that nothing effective will be done, so Apple openly flouting the rules is understandable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tensor ( 102132 )

      there are exactly 0 rules being flouted here.

      this is simply the classic malicious compliance route.

    • so Apple openly flouting the rules is understandable.

      They are not flouting the rules, they are following them. If third-party browsers are required to be allowed in the EU but not elsewhere, there isn't a need for someone in the U.S. develop them. Only someone in the EU.

      I can guarantee if you look at the EU ruling there is nothing in there that says Apple has to allow anyone access to create/maintain these browsers. The ruling only says Apple must allow alternative browsers, not how it is imple

      • Oh, so you think that the Apple developers that implement the changes mandated by the EU are all working from the EU, too?

        It is absolutely common to develope stuff for one region or country from half around the planet.
        Limiting that is absolutely malicious compliance.

        • Limiting that is absolutely malicious compliance.

          But it is compliance. That is what Apple will tell the EU. "We complied with your ruling which made no mention of who can work on this."

          If you don't spell out the conditions you can't complain when you don't like the results.

          • If you're a government, yes you can.

            The EU has consistently resisted Apple's fake and hostile "compliance" and they will likely continue to do so.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              If you're a government, yes you can.

              The EU has consistently resisted Apple's fake and hostile "compliance" and they will likely continue to do so.

              And all Apple has to do is play the "European Citizen" card. This forces those who wish to develop their browsers to do it on EU soil, earning EU salaries and more importantly, earning EU taxes.

              Apple can lift the restriction, but do they really want US citizens working on a product that only works in the EU, and EU money going to the US for it?

              In the end, it's not

            • If you're a government, yes you can.

              The EU has consistently resisted Apple's fake and hostile "compliance" and they will likely continue to do so.

              Not "fake" nor "hostile".

              More "careful".

              • Not "fake" nor "hostile".

                They are arguably not even complying with the letter of the ruling, and are definitely not complying with its spirit.

                More "careful".

                The kind of thing they are doing now is the kind of thing they did before that the EU did not look upon favorably. How is that "careful"?

                • Not "fake" nor "hostile".

                  They are arguably not even complying with the letter of the ruling, and are definitely not complying with its spirit.

                  More "careful".

                  The kind of thing they are doing now is the kind of thing they did before that the EU did not look upon favorably. How is that "careful"?

                  The ruling covers EU-homed Devices. They are in total Compliance. Period.

                  The EU has zero standing to insist that Apple enforce their Laws and Rules outside the EU.

                  Thank Shiva.

      • so Apple openly flouting the rules is understandable.

        They are not flouting the rules, they are following them. If third-party browsers are required to be allowed in the EU but not elsewhere, there isn't a need for someone in the U.S. develop them. Only someone in the EU.

        I can guarantee if you look at the EU ruling there is nothing in there that says Apple has to allow anyone access to create/maintain these browsers. The ruling only says Apple must allow alternative browsers, not how it is implemented. Therefore, it is up to Apple how they want to comply with the EU ruling, and here it is.

        Exactly!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ne0n ( 884282 )
      You're hilarious. How do you propose that the EU "come down hard on Apple over this" when Apple is complying with the relevant EU laws?

      • The laws can be updated in the face of bad faith "compliance".

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ne0n ( 884282 )
          Nobody has an obligation to comply with laws that don't exist or apply.

          Apple simply abides by the laws, whether they're thorough or, as in this case, analogous to poorly crafted spaghetti code written by illiterate children without even a rudimentary grasp of the technical ramifications.

          • Well, it is good that you know what your code looks like, but that makes your assessment of the EU law a tad suspicious :)

  • Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @12:01PM (#64479403)
    As European, I suspect American companies of mistaking ethics for E-thick!

    Americans seem proud of disgusting and abusive behaviour. Having a disgraceful image is probably not the best way to improve sales in Europe, and probably other parts of the world too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      I hope you're right and that Apple's dickish moves lead to fewer sales. But I'm not optimistic. Loyal Apple fans seem very willing to enjoy their Stockholm Syndrome.

    • Yes, Americans all get to vote on how Apple behaves, and this is what we've chosen democratically. Apple's business practices are a reflection of ordinary Americans' desires, rather than poorly crafted EU anti-competition laws.

      Sarcasm aside, the EU has the right idea, but it legislates like a teenage girl chooses what to where to party.

  • What about people on the border still in the EU but apple says to bad our system says you are not in the EU.

    north ireland / ireland issues?

  • and yet apple killed Safari on windows so if they really want to push Safari make windows and Linux builds of it.

    • Apple does still do builds for Windows, they just don't bother with an official distribution. https://docs.webkit.org/Ports/... [webkit.org]

      I mainly know because I've submitted patches to WebKit and gotten failures on Apple's WebKit Windows CI.

      It's mostly useful for running compatibility tests; but there are UIs you can use.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Budenny ( 888916 )

      Its not about Safari. Its about the business model of total control of what the user installs on their phone.

      And the problem that is surfacing is that you can do this, you can implement the walled garden, and you can (as in the latest move) find very ingenious ways of making it impossible for developers to compete with your app store, even when nominally complying with competition regulations. Your customers may not mind.

      But the problem is that what works when you have niche market share will not work whe

  • Tell me you don't want me buying your products without telling me you don't want me buying your products, Apple.

  • As expected. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @03:07PM (#64479969)

    As expected. But this is a very high stakes game they are playing.

    They are inviting the Commission to do what it already has the power to do, and what it has shown it is willing to do.

    It will invoke the regulation that enables them to levy a fine of a fraction of global revenues. Or it will levy a punishing import duty. Or something quite else. Whatever, it has unlimited powers and it will find progressively more onerous measures and implement them. And in the end Apple will lose, because its a company, admittedly a very large one, versus a very large government. Its head to head, and in the end the government will win. The Commission is not going to stop until there is an open market for software on iPhones. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this, that's what they intend, so there is no point lamenting or criticizing this. Its the way the world, or at least the EU, is.

    The Commission is going to break open the walled garden. If it has adopted a measure which can be bypassed, fine, it will change the rules. It has unlimited powers to do that. The more ingenious ways Apple finds of pretending compliance while undermining the purpose of the regulation (which is what this is), the worse the final outcome will be. In the end Apple is going to have to give way or incur truly draconian penalties.

    The interesting thing about this is that going head to head with the Commission shows how desperate Apple is to keep the walled garden intact. Because there must be some voices in Cupertino saying that this is a very risky move in an already risky strategy. But they have made the decision that its a risk worth taking, because the downside of real compliance, they think, is even more costly than any losses they may get from the Commission playing hardball.

    Now that tells you something. That cracking sound you can hear? Its the sound of a business model starting to come apart.

  • >"Whatever brand of browser you thought you were using on your iPhone, under the hood it was basically Safari."

    Just like whatever browser you thought you were using on any device, other than iOS, is basically Chromium... UNLESS that browser is Firefox (with extremely few/rare exceptions).

    >"Browser makers have objected to this for years, because it limits competitive differentiation"

    Right, those same ones that just base all their stuff on Chromium, handing more and more control over the web to Google.

  • Seems to me this will drive the state-of-the-art on GPS spoofing, to the point that it becomes accessible and inexpensive enough for individual developers to arrange a test cell for not much more than the price of a laptop.

    This, of course, would have all sorts of problems, as it would also make it accessible to common criminals and self-funded terrorist cells.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close